<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIn reaction videos, it is important to show what kind of photos or footage the person is looking at and what kind of reaction they have. This is a key element of the video.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, it is very common for reaction videos to use photos or footage of artists, anime scenes, and so on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Given the prevalence of such cases in reaction videos, the relationship with copyright law is often an issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>What is the Copyright Law?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nThe Copyright Law defines its purpose in Article 1 as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n(Purpose)
In simple terms, the purpose of the Copyright Law is to protect the rights of authors and others, thereby encouraging the creation of works and contributing to cultural development.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>What is a Work?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nIn order to be protected under the Copyright Law, it is necessary to qualify as a “work”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The definition of a “work” is stipulated in Article 2, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Copyright Law as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n(Definition)
The concept of a “work” does not include everything that people create. It must \u2460 creatively express thoughts or feelings, and \u2461 belong to the realm of literature, academia, art, or music.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Can Photos and Videos Used in Reaction Videos be Considered Works?<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAs mentioned earlier, reaction videos heavily rely on the reactions of people who have viewed specific photos or footage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, distinctive photos or footage that elicit strong reactions from viewers are often used in reaction videos. In most cases, the photos or videos used in reaction videos can be considered works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Especially, music videos (MVs) of artists and anime footage, which are often used in reaction videos, are considered to be works.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Can Reaction Videos be Considered Copyright Infringement?<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIf the photos or videos used in reaction videos fall under copyrighted material, using them without the permission of the copyright holder would generally be considered copyright infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, there are specific cases where it may not be considered copyright infringement. In the following, we will introduce cases where it is not considered copyright infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>When it can be Quoted and Evaluated<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nUnder the Japanese Copyright Law, there are cases where the use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is not considered copyright infringement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Specifically, these are stipulated in Articles 30 to 47-8 of the Japanese Copyright Law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
These are referred to as limitations on copyright, and in relation to reaction videos, whether it can be quoted and evaluated is a major point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The Japanese Copyright Law stipulates the following about quotation in Article 32, Paragraph 1:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n(Quotation)
In order to be recognized as a quotation, the following four requirements must be met:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\nThe work being quoted is published (publication requirement)<\/li>\n\n\n\n The work is being quoted (quotation requirement)<\/li>\n\n\n\n The quotation conforms to fair practice (fair practice requirement)<\/li>\n\n\n\n The quotation is within a legitimate scope (legitimate scope requirement)<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<\/span>About the Publication Requirement<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nThe work being quoted must be a published work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Specifically, this could be a case where the copyright holder has published the work, or someone who has received a license from the copyright holder has published it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In the case of reaction videos where an artist’s music video or anime footage is used, it is considered that the publication requirement is met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>About the Quotation Requirement<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nFor the quotation requirement, the concepts of clear distinction and subordination (subsidiarity) are important.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Firstly, clear distinction means that the part of the work that is being quoted and the rest of the work must be clearly distinguished.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Next, subordination means that the part being quoted is subordinate, and the rest of the work is dominant. In the case of reaction videos, if the quoted music video or anime footage is shown in a small window and the reaction is the main focus, it is considered that the requirement of subordination is met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>About the Fair Practice Requirement<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nThe fair practice requirement means that the method of quotation conforms to fair practice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The fair practice requirement is judged on a case-by-case basis, and it is not possible to make a general statement, but in some court cases, whether or not the source is clearly indicated has been a factor in the judgment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, it is possible to consider listing the source of the photos or videos used in the reaction video in the description of the reaction video.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>About the Legitimate Scope Requirement<\/span><\/h4>\n\n\n\nIn order to meet the legitimate scope requirement, it must be within a legitimate scope for the purpose of quotation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For example, if the purpose of the reaction video is to upload the photos or videos used in the reaction video, it may be judged that the legitimate scope requirement is not met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/span>Cases where Reaction Videos are not a Major Issue Even if They Infringe Copyright<\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\nAs mentioned above, if you use photos or videos in reaction videos that are copyrighted by others without permission, it will be considered copyright infringement, except in cases where it falls under quotation or the like.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, in reality, there are many cases where reaction videos serve as a kind of promotion, and the copyright holder does not take issue with the copyright infringement and tacitly approves it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Therefore, there are many reaction videos that are strictly speaking in a state of copyright infringement and are uploaded to YouTube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, in the United States, where Google, which operates YouTube, is headquartered, there is a concept of fair use for copyrighted works, and there seems to be a culture of treating photos and videos used in reaction videos as materials, at least to some extent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Summary: Consult Lawyers when Posting Reaction Videos to Avoid Copyright Infringement<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nIn this article, we have explained the relationship between reaction videos on YouTube and copyright law, specifically targeting those who post such videos.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
It’s important to note that if you use photos or videos in your reaction videos that are copyrighted by others without permission, you may be infringing on their copyright, unless your use falls under exceptions such as quotation. Therefore, those who post reaction videos need to be cautious.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Some of you who post reaction videos may think that it’s not a big issue and therefore it’s okay. However, it could be that it just hasn’t become a major issue yet. Therefore, we recommend that those who post reaction videos consult with a lawyer who has specialized knowledge in this area.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/span>Introduction to Our Firm’s Measures<\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\nMonolith Law Office is a legal office with high expertise in both IT, particularly the internet, and law. In recent years, we have handled many advisory cases for YouTubers and VTubers, who are gaining popularity online. The need for legal checks in channel management and contract-related matters is increasing. At our firm, attorneys with specialized knowledge are in charge of these measures.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Within the videos posted on YouTube, there is a genre known as reaction videos. Reaction videos are those in which the main content is the reaction of a YouTuber to a specific photo or video, making i […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":25,"featured_media":60639,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[17],"tags":[21,22],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58956"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/25"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58956"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58956\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":60640,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58956\/revisions\/60640"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/60639"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58956"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58956"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monolith.law\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58956"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}